http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49452
--- Comment #23 from Carrot 2011-09-16 06:57:15 UTC
---
(In reply to comment #21)
> > All callee saved registers should never changed after function call. Here fp
> > has been changed is not because it is after a function call, it is because
> >
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50425
Ganga Jaiswal changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|VERIFIED
--- Comment #2 from Ganga Jaiswa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50390
Elias Pipping changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50390
Elias Pipping changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #25298|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50420
--- Comment #2 from Mikael Morin 2011-09-15
23:19:10 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> (In reply to comment #0)
> > With (patched) trunk, I get:
> > [...]
> With vanilla trunk, I get instead:
> [...]
For information the patch in "(patched) trun
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50407
--- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl
2011-09-15 23:05:25 UTC ---
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:53:17PM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
>
> putting a fairly ugly hack into match_dt_format to
> skip statement lable matching, I can
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50426
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50407
--- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl
2011-09-15 22:53:17 UTC ---
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 09:32:41PM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 09:21:42PM +, anlauf at gmx dot de wrote:
> >
> > When you put par
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50427
Bug #: 50427
Summary: IRA fails to detect conflict
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50426
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50407
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-09-15
22:06:50 UTC ---
> So as Steve, I think the code is invalid.
My mistake: I did not parse the code well enough to realize that the result of
the operator was a valid format. Concerning the actua
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50420
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Morin 2011-09-15
21:39:56 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> With (patched) trunk, I get:
>
> f951: internal compiler error: in simplify_cobound, at fortran/simplify.c:3552
With vanilla trunk, I get instead:
pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50383
--- Comment #6 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2011-09-15 21:39:06 UTC ---
Still further reduction:
class Resource {
};
class BaseReference {
};
template < class interface_type > class Reference:public BaseReference {
public:
void *operator new (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50407
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl
2011-09-15 21:32:41 UTC ---
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 09:21:42PM +, anlauf at gmx dot de wrote:
>
> When you put parentheses around the expressions,
> like (2.ip.8), then the code compiles.
>
> This is also wha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50407
--- Comment #6 from Harald Anlauf 2011-09-15 21:21:42
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 08:21:04PM +, zeccav at gmail dot com wrote:
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50407
> >
> > --- Comment #2 from V
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50407
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl
2011-09-15 21:13:16 UTC ---
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 08:21:04PM +, zeccav at gmail dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50407
>
> --- Comment #2 from Vittorio Zecca 2011-09-15
> 20:21:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50390
Elias Pipping changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #25266|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50403
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-15 20:48:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> I created it.
Sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say. Could you please
elaborate?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50322
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50322
--- Comment #4 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-15 20:44:33 UTC ---
Author: vries
Date: Thu Sep 15 20:44:30 2011
New Revision: 178895
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178895
Log:
2011-09-15 Tom de Vries
PR testsui
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50407
--- Comment #4 from Vittorio Zecca 2011-09-15
20:36:54 UTC ---
I disagree, the Fortran 95 standard at R911 allows PRINT format
and R913 says that format may be a default-char-expr
Now, 2.ip.8 is a default character expression, or not?
Again, the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50426
Bug #: 50426
Summary: gfortran -O1 ICE in estimate_function_body_sizes
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50407
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-09-15
20:28:15 UTC ---
g95 fails with
In file pr50407.f90:10
print 2.ip.8 ! gfortran gets confused, expects a comma
1
Error: Syntax error in PRINT statement at (1)
print *
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50403
--- Comment #4 from Vittorio Zecca 2011-09-15
20:26:18 UTC ---
I created it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50407
--- Comment #2 from Vittorio Zecca 2011-09-15
20:21:04 UTC ---
I believe the code is valid, and it has nothing to do with recursive I/O.
If you comment out the write in the mul function gfortran still fails, so it
does not depend on recursive I/O
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50279
Jack Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||howarth at nitro dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41733
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-15 19:47:21 UTC ---
Also we need to check for the following F08 constraints:
"12.5.2.9 Actual arguments associated with dummy procedure entities
If the interface of a dummy procedure is explici
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41733
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46577
--- Comment #1 from eraman at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-15 19:18:30 UTC ---
Author: eraman
Date: Thu Sep 15 19:18:26 2011
New Revision: 178892
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178892
Log:
Backport r176741 from trunk.
2011-09-15
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48425
--- Comment #1 from eraman at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-15 19:18:30 UTC ---
Author: eraman
Date: Thu Sep 15 19:18:26 2011
New Revision: 178892
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178892
Log:
Backport r176741 from trunk.
2011-09-15
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45348
--- Comment #2 from eraman at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-15 19:18:30 UTC ---
Author: eraman
Date: Thu Sep 15 19:18:26 2011
New Revision: 178892
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178892
Log:
Backport r176741 from trunk.
2011-09-15
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50341
--- Comment #5 from Michael Meissner 2011-09-15
18:34:44 UTC ---
Created attachment 25296
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25296
Patch for GCC 4.7 that disables the split of the load of the new TOC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50341
--- Comment #4 from Michael Meissner 2011-09-15
18:34:11 UTC ---
Created attachment 25295
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25295
Patch for GCC 4.6 that disables the split of the load of the new TOC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50341
Michael Meissner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||meissner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50425
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50425
Bug #: 50425
Summary: precedence rule for pre/post increamet/decreament and
effect of white spaces
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50409
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50423
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50424
Bug #: 50424
Summary: G++ doesn't notice possible throw from default
argument
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
K
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50423
--- Comment #2 from Jack Howarth 2011-09-15
17:57:45 UTC ---
Note that -fpermissive doesn't eliminate the regression.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50423
--- Comment #1 from Jack Howarth 2011-09-15
17:57:08 UTC ---
Attached bzip2 compressed preprocessed source for common/semaphore.cc
reproduces this issue...
[MacPro:~/xplor-nih-2.27/common/bin.Darwin_11_x86_64] howarth% g++-fsf-4.7 -c
semaphore.i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50423
Bug #: 50423
Summary: error: ‘getpid’ was not declared in this scope
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50403
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50401
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50403
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-15 17:48:36 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Thu Sep 15 17:48:27 2011
New Revision: 178889
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178889
Log:
2011-09-15 Janus Weil
PR fortran/5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50401
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-15 17:48:36 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Thu Sep 15 17:48:27 2011
New Revision: 178889
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178889
Log:
2011-09-15 Janus Weil
PR fortran/5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50422
Bug #: 50422
Summary: -Wswitch warns about unhandled cases in nested
switches
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50182
--- Comment #14 from davidxl 2011-09-15 17:28:10
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> David, it looks like we are seeing different things with v4.7... See my
> comment 11 - I am still observing the slowdown. Do you have access to
> v4.1 and v4.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50421
Bug #: 50421
Summary: [4.7 Regression] GC Warning: Out of Memory! Returning
NIL!
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50420
Bug #: 50420
Summary: [Coarray] lcobound doesn't accept coarray
subcomponents
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2316
--- Comment #34 from Marc Glisse 2011-09-15
16:53:33 UTC ---
I posted a related demangler patch on gcc-patches a couple weeks ago, let me
just link it from here so it doesn't get lost:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-09/msg00231.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50407
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50182
--- Comment #13 from oleg at smolsky dot net 2011-09-15 16:53:26 UTC ---
David, it looks like we are seeing different things with v4.7... See my
comment 11 - I am still observing the slowdown. Do you have access to
v4.1 and v4.6? Could you try re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50394
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2011-09-15 16:48:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Thanks a lot! is there any chance to get those fixes into official git so we
> don't need to cummulate local patches? :)
It looks like some libreoffic
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50404
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50394
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka 2011-09-15
15:39:18 UTC ---
Thanks a lot! is there any chance to get those fixes into official git so we
don't need to cummulate local patches? :)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50361
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50365
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50365
--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill 2011-09-15
14:33:42 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Sep 15 14:33:37 2011
New Revision: 178883
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178883
Log:
PR c++/50365
* parser.c (cp_parser_late_ret
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50361
--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill 2011-09-15
14:33:29 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Thu Sep 15 14:33:24 2011
New Revision: 178882
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178882
Log:
PR c++/50361
* expr.c (count_type_elements)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50413
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50413
--- Comment #5 from Uros Bizjak 2011-09-15 14:17:34
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> We have V.bitmap.b63 = V.bitmap.b64; to shift a lower bit of the upper
> quadword
> but GCC has decided not to do this.
Ah, I didn't see the purpose of this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50419
--- Comment #1 from Michael Matz 2011-09-15 14:16:54
UTC ---
Created attachment 25293
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25293
(untested) patch
Potential fix for this. As yet untested.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
--- Comment #35 from vladimir penev 2011-09-15
14:14:16 UTC ---
Yes, it's true. And using the mentioned efix for AIX the problem doesn't exist
any more, the assembler generates correct code and the linker links it as well.
Nothing to do at GCC si
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50419
Bug #: 50419
Summary: Bad interaction between data-ref and disambiguation
with restrict pointers
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50365
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50418
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46072
--- Comment #34 from Daniel Richard G. 2011-09-15
14:01:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #33)
Vladimir, this [GCC] bug report has nothing to do with the assembler
segfaulting. The problem is that the linker can't link what the assembler is
produc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50402
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50404
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50405
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50406
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50413
Anatoly changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50408
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50343
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zeccav at gmail dot com
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50411
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50413
Uros Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50414
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50418
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-09-15
12:29:38 UTC ---
you can use -fpermissive to make G++ accept the code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50418
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-09-15
12:17:48 UTC ---
[basic.scope.class]
A name N used in a class S shall refer to the same declaration
in its context and when re-evaluated in the completed scope of
S. No diagnostic is required for a v
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50403
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50412
Ira Rosen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41816
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-09-15
11:33:50 UTC ---
Hmm yes, this is only really an issue for people who install libstdc++ into a
directory that ldconfig searches, which for most people means it only affects
the system compiler, which
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50415
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-09-15
11:33:16 UTC ---
'-O2 -ftree-vectorize' is OK, '-O3' gives the ICE.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50415
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-09-15
11:30:14 UTC ---
> This is a regression that occurred in the same range as pr50414 (between
> revisions 173852 (OK) and 175707 (ICE)).
r174030 is OK
r174283 gives the ICE.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50414
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-09-15
11:27:35 UTC ---
> This is a regression that occurred between revisions 173852 (OK) and 175707
> (ICE). If needed, I'll be able to narrow the range later today.
173817 is OK
173917 gives the IC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50315
--- Comment #7 from Sergey Ostanevich 2011-09-15
11:24:27 UTC ---
Richard, I believe your test should be reading as
> So you can go from (a +no b) +no c to a + no (b + c), dropping overflow
knowledge on re-association.
And let me re-phrase wha
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50401
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50076
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50410
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50409
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50411
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-09-15
10:55:19 UTC ---
Likely a duplicate of pr50343 fixed by revision 178775.
I use this pr for some general comments:
(1) follow the Mikael Morin's advice in pr50375 comment #4:
> Please paste t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41816
--- Comment #8 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2011-09-15 10:50:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > Why don't we just install this file in
> > /usr/share/gdb/auto-load/usr/lib64/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.7.0/ instead of
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50416
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-09-15
10:39:12 UTC ---
It works for me with -O1, -Ofast, and -m32 -Ofast. I used x86_64-apple-darwin10
with
GMP version 5.0.2, MPFR version 3.0.1, MPC version 0.9
Likely a MPFR (or its use) bug. I s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50415
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|gfortran -Ofast SIGSEGV in |[4.7 Regression] gfortran
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50414
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|gfortran -Ofast SIGSEGV in |[4.7 Regression] gfortran
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50344
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-09-15
10:06:31 UTC ---
Thanks Paolo - I forgot to add a follow-up comment to say I'd tested it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50412
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41816
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-09-15
10:04:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Why don't we just install this file in
> /usr/share/gdb/auto-load/usr/lib64/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/4.7.0/ instead of
> $(DESTDIR)$(toolexeclibdir)/ by def
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50414
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
1 - 100 of 130 matches
Mail list logo
